First thing I'd note is that it's well worth reading Jayman's responses to Keith in the combox. Jayman tries to talk sense to Keith. Those are worth reading in their own right. Back to Keith:

In the “Freedom Summer” of 1964, young activists went into the Dante-esque netherworld that was the state of Mississippi to register African-Americans to vote. For a hundred years, racist goons, often wearing the uniforms of police or state troopers, had used violence and intimidation to prevent black people from exercising their Constitutional right to vote. Three of the activists, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, were abducted and murdered in Neshoba County by members of the Ku Klux Klan, aided by a Neshoba County Deputy Sherriff. Chaney was a black man from Mississippi and Goodman and Schwerner were whites from New York City.

That raises an interesting question. In the wake of the Orlando massacre, many liberals pivoted to gun control. Well, imagine if black communities south of the Mason-Dixon line had been armed to the teeth during the Jim Crow era. Wouldn't that give the KKK pause? Wouldn't lynching drop precipitously? How many homicidal Klansmen would venture into a black community, knowing the residents were willing and able to repel assailants with lethal force? Cowards attack soft targets. Cowards attack the defenseless.

After yesterday’s massacre in Orlando, which obviously targeted gay people, we need a new Dave Dennis to stand up and get mad and damn us if we do not get mad too. We need someone to point fingers at every purveyor of homophobia and bigotry and make them squirm in the hot light of our anger.

I'm supposed to squirm under Keith's disapproving glare? It's so comically self-important for him to imagine that his disapproval means anything to Christians.

In addition, casting the issue in terms of "homophobia" and "bigotry" begs the question. If mere disapproval is equivalent to "hatred" and "bigotry," then the Secular Outpost is a hate group.

We must point to every foaming, lowbrow, knuckle-dragging hater as well as to the pious, mealy-mouthed hypocrites that claim to hate the sin while loving the sinner.

Suppose parents have a drug-addicted son or anorexic daughter. Can't they love their child but hate the harmful behavior?

BTW, it doesn't occur to Parsons that branding Christians as "foaming, lowbrow, knuckle-dragging haters" is, in itself, a textbook example of bigoted hate speech on his part.

We should scornfully disdain those who pretend to hide their hatred behind a banner of “religious freedom.” Voters need to repudiate elected degenerates and demagogues who attack transgender persons by screaming about voyeurs and pedophiles in the women’s room.

But transgender policies do give voyeurs and pedophiles entree to the women's room.

Moreover, it's not just the "foaming, lowbrow, knuckle-dragging haters" who object, but many ordinary women and girls.

Likewise, what about girls who understandably object to boys "transgender girls" (i.e. biological boys who self-identify as girls) competing with girls in intramural sports?

We must make absolutely clear that the real perverts are the sanctimonious jerks who are obsessed with controlling other people’s sexuality.

Is he saying voyeurs and pedophiles aren't real perverts?

Insofar as religion promotes or justifies bigotry, we have to identify religion as one of the guilty parties, and not try to blame it all on social, economic, or political causes.

Insofar as atheism promotes or justifies bigotry against Jews and Christians, we have to identify atheism as one of the guilty parties.

Homophobia is deadly. It kills people. We have known that for many years, and the Orlando massacre only adds exclamation points…Yet such incidents have happened many, many times all over the world. ISIS recently threw gay people off the roofs of buildings.

Christophobia is deadly. It kills people. Keith's post is boiling over with paroxysms of Christophobia. Why is he silent about the martyrdom of Christians all around the world?

Atheism is deadly. It kills people. Look at the body count of Maoism, Stalinism, the Khmer Rouge, &c. Look at how secularized countries in Europe are euthanizing the elderly, developmentally disabled, or clinically depressed.

So, we should be angry at the purveyors of murderous hate. But doesn’t anger preclude dialogue, and isn’t dialogue what we need? No. Dialogue assumes that you are dealing with a rational agent who is willing to listen and change if convinced by reason. Homicidal hatred is not amenable to cure by dialogue. We have to chase it from its hiding places and into the bright, hot light of public shame. We must refuse to hear its unctuous excuses and call it by its rightful name. For instance, we have to make it crystal clear that state legislators who sponsor bogus “religious freedom” bills are merely trying to make the world safe for haters.

Well, it's easy to turn the tables on that policy, is it not? No point dialoguing with atheists. Dialogue assumes that you are dealing with a rational agent who is willing to listen and change if convinced by reason. Militant atheism is not amenable to cure by dialogue. We have to chase it from its hiding places and into the bright, hot light of public shame. We must refuse to hear its unctuous excuses and call it by its rightful name. For instance, we have to make it crystal clear that militant atheists like Keith Parsons, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and Sam Harris are merely trying to make the world safe for haters.